Wow Ö lots has happened since I left for my seminar on "Elder Abuse"Ö. (no guys - it was not a "how to" primer)

It appears that a lot of good stuff has been shared.

1) Obi-son wrote something that got kinda got run over. It was.

"but if you were a god you would take many forms to reach all of the people of the world right?"

Obi-son, if I were God that is the way I would have done it, but clearly I am not (lucky for you cause I would make an awful Supreme Being Ė you wouldnít like it Ė donít even go there). Although I know he loves me, for some reason Jesus did not feel the need to consult me before he said,

"I am the way and the truth and the life; no on comes to the Father, but through Me." - Jn 14:6

I admit this is a statement of exclusivity and as a Christian I am stuck with it. I donít have a deep theological justification why God has this point of view. I can render a guess. Maybe, if I sent my son, who had done nothing wrong, to bear the entire worldís sin (especially Obliqueís which was particularly bad - and no I won't share the particulars), then maybe it is not unreasonable for me to have the expectation that my sonís personal sacrifice be recognized as the exclusive way to be at peace with me. Just a guess.

2) Regarding Yvondís post about religion, I donít disagree with him at all. All religion is dead. I do go to a building with friends who are like minded for encouragement and support, but that does not make me a Christian (in the same way that if I stood in a garage, I would not become a car). What makes a person a Christian is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, nothing more, nothing less.

3) Caray replied,

"If I tell you that you are an idiot, I am insulting you. If I tell you that I believe that what you do is sinful and you have to stop, I am telling you how to live. And I am talking ONLY about the narrow range of rules which in our democracies are considered private life."

Thank you Caray for your response.

I can see that you are a person who cherishes personal liberty. I respect that because I cherish personal liberty too. Even so, I donít agree that liberty should be unrestrained merely because it involves a persons private life.

Let me explain. Laws tell us what we "should do." Some laws impact our public life and others impact our private life. For the most part, this is good. I will use an extreme example to make this point. I am sure, you would agree with me that drowning babies at home is immoral (dare I say sinful). It is appropriately outlawed in both of our countries as murder. If someone told us they were about to do such a evil thing, we would probably both try to restrain them and most likely call the police. So whether or not actions done in privacy is not the issue. What is right or wrong is the issue. The issue is what should be the moral standard? That is the correct debate.

Now, you may say, well, what I meant was that no personís liberty should be restrained unless it could hurt someone else.

Fair enough. With that in mind, lets look at the flirting with anotherís spouse issue. What is the likely result of this conduct? Could it hurt others?

If I flirt with a married woman what are the negative possibilities.

-I could get shot (or beat up) by a jealous husband. I guess that does not count cause only I get hurt by my conduct.
-If she is married to a jerk, he could shoot her (crimes of passion dealing with the internet happen regularly now - this is not a fiction - I read about it all the time)
-If she is married to a lesser jerk, she might get physically or mentally abused.
-If she has a strong marriage with a nice guy, I could weaken it, hurting her husband.
-If she has a weak marriage, but worth saving, I might destroy it.
-If there are kids involved, and I break up a marriage, then that means their kids donít get the benefit of their biological parents being together because of what I have done (Nope, donít want that on my mind at night).
-I will let you figure out all of the feelings my own spouse may have If I ever flirted with a married woman. Clearly she would be hurt too.

None of these things might happen, but they very easily could. For these reasons, I believe that it is morally wrong (label it "sin") to flirt with a married woman. Donít get me wrong, when I was single I flirted. Had a lot of fun doing it too, but I flirted with single women. I still flirt with my wife. If your married, I recommend it. LIBERTY!!!

As for the distinction between telling people others what they should do or insulting them. I see little difference. Why? Because when people insult others it is usually to tell them what they should do. Usually, what they are saying with such an insult is "shut up - you are not important."

Thank you again for sharing your ideas.

4) Finally, I am not a Bible Beater. At no time in my life have I ever physically or mentally abused a single Bible.

Have Fun All,

Oblique

P.S. Thank you everyone who defended the unfettered sharing of ideas on this thread.

P.S.S. - Cocles ... apology accepted ... no hard feelings at all ... I look forward to getting to know you better._________________For every complex issue in life there is a simple easy to understand and easy to apply wrong answer.

Last edited by Oblique on Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total

Ok... I read all of Cocles' post (no kiss!!! Naaahhh Help!) and I get his point.

I am back in. I have to admit that Cocles bring a nice touch to SST. It would be a dull place without him around. _________________Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering.

Caray
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France

Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:52 am Post subject:

Cocles,
yeek ! _________________My reality cheque bounced

Caray
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France

Posted:
Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:22 am Post subject:

Oblique,
You didn't get my point or didn't want to answer it.

You asked me what difference I made between insulting someone and telling her how to live her life. I gave it. I wasn't talking about murder in a private home which, as you pointed out, is still murder and illegal. I was talking about someone coming and telling me that I should follow his rules, his thoughts, for everyday life, and only his because he is right and any other way is a sin. I am quite ready to let him live as he sees fit, I expect the same courtesy from him. Which I very rarely get, for my own good of course.

back to the drawing board, me lad.

As for flirting, I live in a country where a man is expected to flirt with women. However there are strict rules to follow, limits to respect, you will flirt differently with a married woman or a single woman. I have seen my father complimenting women in a light flirt, and my mother accepting those compliments from other men, yet they are devoted to each other and wouldn't think of taking those seriously. It is a game to enjoy, nothing more.
To each his own. _________________My reality cheque bounced

Oh my dear GOD this post became BORING!!!!
Why on earth someone would go of on a religous tangent is beyond me. If I want a sermon I'll drive my ass to church. I don't need random religious fanatics telling me how to live my life. Quoting the bible??? [b]COME ON!!![/b]

Caray you rock. I completley agree. We have laws, and religious morals. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The laws, most of us agree on! religous morals??? :laugh: doubtful. on a side not, since so many christians supported the war? Do any of you fanatics find it strange that bush constantly talks about the war as a cruscade? he metions the lord non stop. I have no problem with him having faith. but this war shouldn't have been about faith at all. (for those of you who don't know I am opening a new can of worms.) The administration made it sound like JC is on our side??? I thought he was all about the peace. Anyways back to the point of this thread. Or at least to the spot to where it all became out of control.

Caray said it. In france (and i know some of you hate them, but try and forget that part.) They have harmless flirting. Why because people trust eachother. Now she talked of different levels of flirting. And the thing is is that is what i have been trying to say the whole time! I understand flirting with a spouse is bad. Had my intentions been serious I can understand all the hype. But since we both knew it was Leggy being a silly goose no one should be upset.

You can go off on your rants, and tell stories of what things will happen. But do things turn out that way when a billy(your kid) has a friend over who thinks your wife is good looking, he smiles and flirts like little kids do. Would you be upset. DOUBT IT. Because you know it would never happen, you know that the little kid is being a big fat silly head. duh. this topic is over! :p

First, I would like to say that Caray does have a point. She certainly knows more than I do about french culture. I am not french. It is very possible that there might be flirting conduct in France that might not generate the negative responses that I indicated in my prior post. I can only speak to locations within my culture on what might be found offensive (like in Madison Wisconsin)

Even so, look carefully at Carayís post. Even in France there are rules for that type of flirting. What if someone broke the acceptable rules for flirting within your country Caray and crossed over that line of conduct. People within your culture are likely to find that offensive correct? They would conclude that the conduct was morally wrong even though the wrong type of flirting is legal.

My point is that in different cultures different standards may be accepted for what is moral behavior, but still there are people telling you what you should do. This list of "shoulds" include many things that effect our daily lives and are far less offensive than murder. I admitted that my initial illustration was extreme. But lets look at less extreme examples of shoulds in my culture that are expressed by law.

You drive on the right side of the road. You should timely pay your taxes. You should buy auto insurance to drive a motor vehicle. I should not drive drunk. You should not take certain drugs without a prescription. I should not even possess other drugs. Lots of shoulds and they affect my private life. Most of them good. Some of them, I disagree with.

My point above was that laws tell us what we must do. Notwithstanding popular myth that you cannot legislate morality, law "always" reflects the morality of the persons who have the power to make them and enforce them. Whether the law makers are good or bad. Even Hitler was able to legislate his morality into law while he was in power. That was ugly.

But what you and Legolas are saying is that so long as it is legal, you have no right to say that you are morally wrong in your conduct. You are kidding right? You expect me to allow those paragons of virtue in my Congress (yes I am being sarcastic here) to define morality by what freedoms they permit or restrict by law? You mean I am going to let (insert name of politician of the political stripe you dislike here) to define my personal morality?

No Way Ö Not this little gray duck!!!
I donít buy your premise at all.
Personal Morality has to be based on something beyond what is merely legal._________________For every complex issue in life there is a simple easy to understand and easy to apply wrong answer.

Caray
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France

Posted:
Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:49 am Post subject:

Oblique wrote:

But what you and Legolas are saying is that so long as it is legal, you have no right to say that you are morally wrong in your conduct. .

Please define morally wrong. Your definition and mine may differ on many points. Which is the point. Yes, I have to right to do things you may find morally wrong but which I don't.

Oblique wrote:

You are kidding right? You expect me to allow those paragons of virtue in my Congress (yes I am being sarcastic here) to define morality by what freedoms they permit or restrict by law? You mean I am going to let (insert name of politician of the political stripe you dislike here) to define my personal morality?

No Way Ö Not this little gray duck!!!
I donít buy your premise at all.
Personal Morality has to be based on something beyond what is merely legal.

Very true. However, you claim for yourself the right to base your private morality on religious beliefs and laws. Why can't I claim the right to base my private morality on... morality as I see it ? It is my choice, and I have the right to refuse rules given by someone who believes that he knows best and refuses me the right to make that choice or think for myself. For my own good, of course. _________________My reality cheque bounced

What that poor little gray duck means to say is that he is going to have to look up some bible scriptures for you. What if my beliefs were to worship Satan, Or what if I belived in human sacarafice??? You are comnparing apples and oranges when you try to compare that type of flirting that normally occurs on this site.

Ob. You are missing the point. So now we have come to a time when we need to "shift back" to how this issue was started in the first place. And that dealt with me and probably more than one female (if we know that they are female for sure!) on this website.

Now please pay attention because I am going to reiterate my point here. I don't want you to loose it again. Caray and I have BOTH agreed that there are lines! That it is wrong to cross them! But we merely say that peopleís lines are different among individuals. And that the type of flirting that I was doing was plainly harmless. For neither on ever took it as serious. Okay so Yvond and Yourself have tight lines based from your religious beliefs, or maybe not. Just a smile alone at other women is crossing it. A little small wink to a waitress is crossing that line! come on! Don't let your faith blind you to the obvious. This discussion on flirting was started by me. I was contesting that Yvond intruded on my conversations with MARRIED female here. He didn't know me. He made a quick and vague judgment! Like your religion often does. I defended his accusation of me trying to, or indirectly possibly planting sowing seeds that could bear terrible fruit!!

Yes things happen on occasion. And there are those extreme situations that do occur. The problem is that you are not being pragmatic. Let us try and keep things real. I hardly flirt with anyone here and if I do itís by me giving compliments, or just being funny. I think you guys constantly look at the world as a dark place where everyone is out to get you. It seems to me that you always think of the worst possible outcomes. I thought Jesus taught hope too???

Anyways in Cocles words this is a dead horse. Ob we will continue to go around in circles on this until one of us pukes. We will not share all each others beliefs or morals. Everyone here is WAY TO STUBBORN FOR THAT! You have ideals, I have logic. And thatís just that.

Caray
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France

Posted:
Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:59 am Post subject:

Oblique,
As we are diving deep into the unfathomable waters of comparative moralities, I'd rather stop here. I don't have the time for it, and this forum doesn't need two or three pages answers. So I am stopping there.
Cheers_________________My reality cheque bounced

I will respect your request that we do not debate the merits of our respective moralities. Believe it or not, that was not where I was headed.

When I said your post was good, I was referring to the fact I agree with you that you have a right to decide what you believe the correct moral standard is. Not only should I not force you to think that my standard is correct, I cannot. You are a free thinking human. What I am saying is that I respect your right to decide what you believe to be the correct moral standard. Every person must decide what that moral standard should be. Even so, I think that in making such a decision they should be informed. In short, if your standard is correct, it should be able to stand up against any other conflicting ideas.

Up until now, I have had to battle through ideas such as "Christians should keep their mouths shut because their opinions do not matter in the marketplace of ideas" and "it is wrong to say that someone elseís conduct is morally wrong (vague or specific judgment of conduct is wrong)."

Once you and Legolas jumped over the bar to saying that you too have standards of morality, albiet different from mine, you changed the debate. Why? Because at that time, you revealed something that is true. That each person has a moral standard and that in that moral standard they have "shoulds" that they expect other people to obey to be morally right. Every person has standards by which they judge other peopleís conduct as acceptable or not. Even if a personís highest virtue is tolerance of all behavior (even abhorrent), they believe that people "should" tolerate others no matter what. In that "should" that person makes a moral judgment as to conduct.

Once all agree that every person, makes decisions as to what is morally right or morally wrong, it shifts the debate from, "you have no right to judge my conduct" to "a decision as to what is morally right or wrong always occurs anyway so what is the correct decision here". That is why your post raised the bar. That is why I respected it. I still do.

On the same token, by raising that bar, you approach a crossroads. It is to self evaluate what is the right thing to do or the right moral standard. That process is rarely comfortable. This is why most people donít want to go there. This is why I think you donít want to go there. As I said above, I wonít force you. I will respect your request.

Dear Legolas

I am very sorry that your conduct (i.e. the flirting issue) was placed upon the chopping block of idea evaluation. I know you feel personally attacked Not fun. I donít know a single person who likes to have the more significant issue "a decision as to what is morally right or wrong always occurs anyway so what is the correct decision here" applied to their own conduct. I know that I hate it. But when it happens, I usually end up a better person. I presume you donít like me very much, but I do respect you a lot. I have read a lot of your posts in other forums and most of the time, I agree with you.

Because I know that it is your opinion that if a Christian has a brain cell, it is lonely for company, my arguments were not based upon scripture. They were based upon what negative things could happen. I did this because I knew that you, my audience, did not accept my fundamental assumptions related to what is right or wrong. The only time I used scripture in this thread was to encourage Yvond (who was getting pounded), and to answer Obi-sonís question about God. Because the listeners were open to such input, I think what I shared with them was justified.

Best Regards to Both of You,

Oblique_________________For every complex issue in life there is a simple easy to understand and easy to apply wrong answer.

Last edited by Oblique on Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

Dude I have no problems with you! I was just giving you a hard time too. I have no problem with christians, most of my family acts the same way. It was just a forum, never take it serious always presume the best, And remeber that most people here do like eachother, they just argue. that was the point of the whole thread in my mind. But anywho, I am going to pull out my bow, and make sure this horse stays dead.

Peace!
Leggy

Caray
Lieutenant Commander

Joined: Oct 17, 2002
Member#: 243
Posts: 408
Location: France

Posted:
Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:18 pm Post subject:

All right, I'll bite. Here are my answers

Oblique wrote:

I agree with you that you have a right to decide what you believe the correct moral standard is.Not only should I not force you to think that my standard is correct, I cannot. Oblique

Then we have no problem.

Oblique wrote:

Even so, I think that in making such a decision they should be informed.

Of what ? Of your particular set of beliefs ? That your standard is different ? I was raised a Christian, saw, thought, and decided. Do not think that disagreeing with those teachings means being unaware of them.

Oblique wrote:

if your standard is correct, it should be able to stand up against any other conflicting ideas.Oblique

I still don't understand what you mean. I haven't met any standard without conflicting ideas.

Oblique wrote:

"it is wrong to say that someone else’s conduct is morally wrong (vague or specific judgment of conduct is wrong Oblique

Still holding to that one. The previous one isn't mine.

Oblique wrote:

On the same token, by raising that bar, you approach a crossroads. It is to self evaluate what is the right thing to do or the right moral standard. That process is rarely comfortable. This is why most people don’t want to go there. This is why I think you don’t want to go there. As I said above, I won’t force you. I will respect your request.)."Oblique

Not what I said. I am quite aware that standards have to be constantly reevaluated and carefully thought out, sometimes to the bitter end.
I am also aware that sometimes standards conflict, that's why we created philosophy and theology to sort it out and we still haven't finished. I try to weight carefully my standards, probably badly, being only human.

However, if you want to pursue this, do it by email (my address is in my account details). We must be boring people to tears right now on SST. Which was why I didn't want to go on._________________My reality cheque bounced